• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question regarding HCR that is now in place?

Do you agree with the component of HCR that disallows rescission.

  • Total voters
    17
T

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have read the original HCR and followed and work in the Healthcare Industrial Complex as a compassionate Provider.

Question ... One part of the new HCR that is now in place is that the private payers (in one of the most lucrtive industries in the country) can no longer cancel your health insurance once you get sick. Yes people ... for years you could faithfully pay your premium and then be cancelled when the bad news hits.

It was a common business practice known as rescission and one that Obama was adamant about to be included in HCR.

In the new HCR under this administration health plans cannot cancel you when you get sick unless you committed fraud when you applied for coverage.

Should this be overturned and is it unconstitutional to require a company to continue your coverage if you become ill. Another thought .... those companies that make billions ...if they cancle each woman that contracts breast cancer or each man that has a blocked artery when the next fiscal cycle rolls around they can make Billions.

What do you think ...?
 
Last edited:
I understand insurance companies can and do act illegally, but it is my understanding that we already have laws that dictate that rescission is only allowed when they can prove the insured misrepresented themselves.

If laws need tightening up to make sure this is the case, fine, but I don't like the idea that we need to do so just for one industry. contract law is contract law.
 
ARealConservative said:
I understand insurance companies can and do act illegally, but it is my understanding that we already have laws that dictate that rescission is only allowed when they can prove the insured misrepresented themselves.

If laws need tightening up to make sure this is the case, fine, but I don't like the idea that we need to do so just for one industry. contract law is contract law.
Click to expand...

There's also the pre-existing condition thing.

In a system of private insurance only, this and rescission would seem to merit legislation.

Always seemed to me that the ACA merely offered the insurance industry millions of new mandatory customers in exchange for ceasing practises they would have eventually been forced to end anyway.
 
ARealConservative said:
I understand insurance companies can and do act illegally, but it is my understanding that we already have laws that dictate that rescission is only allowed when they can prove the insured misrepresented themselves.

If laws need tightening up to make sure this is the case, fine, but I don't like the idea that we need to do so just for one industry. contract law is contract law.
Click to expand...

No the laws until HCR that prevented such were so watered down (lobbyists in billion dollar industries trolling the far right) by the very companies that until the HCR and this part now enacted it existed.

Would you like that taken back to 2008 where rescission was alive and well?

BTW ... I could have made more money working for such companies in the early 2000's and getting a bonus just to cut off people who have paid for 20 years ... lots of physicians and NP's did it.

Keep in mind ... that act of rescission was one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy among hardworking employed insured American citizens. Is that component of HCR protecting our citizens right or wrong?
 
Last edited:
while i think the private, for-profit health care delivery model is a failure in progress, i support banning providers from engaging in these practices.
 
What if...? said:
There's also the pre-existing condition thing.
Click to expand...

preexisting conditions is an entirely different matter, those with higher risks carry a higher premiums.

Unfortunately, previous meddling in the health care industry exacerbated this problem by shifting the rules and caused employers to be the source of our plans.

In a system of private insurance only, this and rescission would seem to merit legislation.
Click to expand...

I still don't see any reason to make one industry operate under different rules. There are problems with the courts in that those with deep pockets abuse the system and willfully violate contracts. I would support sensible legislation to handle that issue, but it applies to all industries
 
Helix said:
while i think the private, for-profit health care delivery model is a failure in progress, i support banning providers from engaging in these practices.
Click to expand...

who will go to school to become a dr without a profit motive? who invests money on new drug research to break even?

simply removing profits from insurance companies isn't going to do jack squat either.
 
Dion said:
No the laws until HCR that prevented such were so watered down (lobbyists in billion dollar industries trolling the far right) by the very companies that until the HCR and this part now enacted it existed.
Click to expand...

the law varies from state to state, but overall, I disagree with your assessment. the law itself still does not allow for rescission without some sort of misrepresentation on behalf of the insured.
 
ARealConservative said:
who will go to school to become a dr without a profit motive? who invests money on new drug research to break even?

simply removing profits from insurance companies isn't going to do jack squat either.
Click to expand...

i didn't argue that it would.

we should vastly increase the supply of doctors and make it much less expensive to become one. additionally, with a billion dollar price tag to make it to phase 3 testing, aspirin probably wouldn't be approved if it were developed today. there are many facets of our failing system. however, that doesn't mean that the system isn't failing.

our best bet is to look at what the rest of the first world is doing, pick the best parts of each plan, and craft a plan that will work for America. the "anything other than overpaying at every point of care is socialism" attitude is hindering the process.
 
Rescission was very rare but was made into a "current health care CRISIS" boggie man, by those hoping to gain more support for health care mandates of ALL kinds. 90% of medical care insurance is bought and paid for by employers, so NO rescission is possible there. That leaves only individuals, the 10% that purchase policies directly from insurance companies that may even be subject to it.

Consider the pre-existing condition ban, it sounds SO unfair too, but is it really? If I can buy medical insurance AFTER I discover an expensive to treat condition, or AFTER I feel sickly, then why EVER buy it before then? Why not cancel it immediately after care has been rendered and paid for? The same goes for "rescission"; if I say that I am healthy, or don't NOW smoke, then I get a MUCH better rate, so I likely will say so, hoping it to be true, or that it won't be challenged later. But who knows; I could have early to mid stage cancer yet may have not noticed any symptoms yet? Why don't I just wait until I am sick, or start feeling a bit off? Well, there is a compromise here, to be sure; one can postpone getting insurance until THEY "feel a bit sick" but have yet to seek treatment for that ailment (thus no proof of the "lie" is on file).

This is where MOST rescission comes in; you say all is well and buy the medical insurance. Very soon, you go to the doctor, using that new insurance benefit (why not you are paying for it?) and they find multiple problems, clogged arteries, perhaps some tumors that my be bad news and run a bunch of expensive tests, these expenses (of course) go to the insurance company for payment; the next thing, when the test results come back, they say you need heart bypass surgery and treatment for cancer that will cost well over half a million dollars. The insurance company now feels they were SCREWED, since you have been with them for less than a year, had no prior insurance and they think that you KNEW you were in bad shape, but lied, when you decided, after 20 years, to finally buy medical insurance; they decide to rescind your policy, they know it will be appealed, that you may even get on the news, giving them bad press and they will likely spend up to $200K in legal fees, but they decide that beats taking at least a $500K sure loss.

Link: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/rescissions-much-ado-about-nothing/
 
Last edited:

Well for one thing, it's a life or death industry & I agree with Helix that it shouldn't be for profit. Second, the Indiviual Mandate is designed to require those who feel invincible to join the pool. Thereby raising the number of healthy folks, less likely to make a claim, giving the insurer more $$$$ to carry those with pre-existing conditions & those who become sick while insured.
Another interesting fact is that unless the Koch Bros. SCOTUS overturns the mandate, the companies will be required to give rebates to thier custoers. The reason is that they made a profit exceding the 20% allowed for opperating & profit. :peace

ARealConservative said:
preexisting conditions is an entirely different matter, those with higher risks carry a higher premiums.

Unfortunately, previous meddling in the health care industry exacerbated this problem by shifting the rules and caused employers to be the source of our plans.



I still don't see any reason to make one industry operate under different rules. There are problems with the courts in that those with deep pockets abuse the system and willfully violate contracts. I would support sensible legislation to handle that issue, but it applies to all industries
Click to expand...
 

Insurence Companies are not healthcare providers, they are profiteers, middlemen at best. A single payer would reduce costs considerably. Doctors deal with many different Companies, often more than once for one claim. Insurence for homeowners, veicles etc. is fine to be for profit, what price a life. :confused: :peace
ARealConservative said:
who will go to school to become a dr without a profit motive? who invests money on new drug research to break even?

simply removing profits from insurance companies isn't going to do jack squat either.
Click to expand...
 
ARealConservative said:
who will go to school to become a dr without a profit motive? who invests money on new drug research to break even?

simply removing profits from insurance companies isn't going to do jack squat either.
Click to expand...

My OP and the HCR component I referred to has nothing to do with doctors salary except sometimes when the billion dollar private payor industry was allowed to cancel your health insurance policy once you became ill ... the doctors either treat and do not get piad or put the patient to the back burner ... creating a cycle that then burdens the tax payor as those hardworking citizens that paid their premium for 20 years are shut out and use the Emergency Departments.

How is this so difficult for anyone to comprehend?

Again, please vote ... does anyone think the component of HCR that finally had some teeth and is now enacted to protect American citizens who are hard working and paid their premiums to have some protection ...yes do you agree with this component or no do you disagree with this component of HCR?

In fact, I actually understand the components of HCR and thought breaking it down very simply ...with each component separated (as some may agree with some components and disagree with other components) might be more helpful for discussion.

I detest the bumper sticker sub IQ "Obamacare" of those who cannot intelligently even discuss or know what they are referencing.
 

Actually Dion, I have a feeling that (baring a another bad decision by SCOTUS) in years to come "ObamaCare" will be a much loved program. JMO :peace
Dion said:
My OP and the HCR component I referred to has nothing to do with doctors salary except sometimes when the billion dollar private payor industry was allowed to cancel your health insurance policy once you became ill ... the doctors either treat and do not get piad or put the patient to the back burner ... creating a cycle that then burdens the tax payor as those hardworking citizens that paid their premium for 20 years are shut out and use the Emergency Departments.

How is this so difficult for anyone to comprehend?

Again, please vote ... does anyone think the component of HCR that finally had some teeth and is now enacted to protect American citizens who are hard working and paid their premiums to have some protection ...yes do you agree with this component or no do you disagree with this component of HCR?

In fact, I actually understand the components of HCR and thought breaking it down very simply ...with each component separated (as some may agree with some components and disagree with other components) might be more helpful for discussion.

I detest the bumper sticker sub IQ "Obamacare" of those who cannot intelligently even discuss or know what they are referencing.
Click to expand...
 
jpevans said:

Insurence Companies are not healthcare providers, they are profiteers, middlemen at best. A single payer would reduce costs considerably. Doctors deal with many different Companies, often more than once for one claim. Insurence for homeowners, veicles etc. is fine to be for profit, what price a life. :confused: :peace
Click to expand...

Bravo!

I am healthcare provider ... the far right hacks (Fox news fed by the profiteers) has reframed the profiteers somehow as "health providers" as the expense of American citizens and even our economy.
 
jpevans said:

Well for one thing, it's a life or death industry & I agree with Helix that it shouldn't be for profit.
Click to expand...

i'm not for removing the profit motive. however, i think there should be a non-profit entity providing basic coverage. additionally, health insurance should be in no way tied to one's employer. that is one of the worst parts of our system.
 
jpevans said:
A single payer would reduce costs considerably.
Click to expand...


no it won't because people still won't price shop in the health care market. Without that critical component, prices will continue to escalate.
 

What is the critical component? Stock holders? Multi Millionaires CEO's? Actual healtcare providers having to deal with multible Insurence Companies, who refuse to pay two, three times before the claim is finally paid? What exactly? :peace
ARealConservative said:
no it won't because people still won't price shop in the health care market. Without that critical component, prices will continue to escalate.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure about the constitutionality question.

As for canceling insurance policies, I would think it likely that it's related to one of several factors. Fraudulent information on application, meeting cap limits, or other reasons that are justifiably legal. Otherwise, I would think that insurance companies would be getting sued frequently with the plaintiffs winning the lawsuits. It would depend on what the contract stated, and doesn't necessarily imply that the insurer is unjustly dropping their clients.

As to the "billions" of dollars being made by insurers, the health insurance has a relatively low profit margin compared to many other industries, so I'm not sure that it really has anything to do with some sort of accusation that they are unfairly profiting.
 
jpevans said:

What is the critical component? Stock holders? Multi Millionaires CEO's? Actual healtcare providers having to deal with multible Insurence Companies, who refuse to pay two, three times before the claim is finally paid? What exactly? :peace
Click to expand...

I stated exactly what the critical component was in sentence one: price shopping. Without it no significant downward pressure exists on prices.
 
lizzie said:
I'm not sure about the constitutionality question.

As for canceling insurance policies, I would think it likely that it's related to one of several factors. Fraudulent information on application, meeting cap limits, or other reasons that are justifiably legal. Otherwise, I would think that insurance companies would be getting sued frequently with the plaintiffs winning the lawsuits. It would depend on what the contract stated, and doesn't necessarily imply that the insurer is unjustly dropping their clients.

As to the "billions" of dollars being made by insurers, the health insurance has a relatively low profit margin compared to many other industries, so I'm not sure that it really has anything to do with some sort of accusation that they are unfairly profiting.
Click to expand...

You are woefully mistaken and operating on a false premise regarding the health insurance industry.

So far 6/1 does not want rescission overturned and once again legal.
 

With a government run Single Payer system you eliminate the Stock Holders, Million$+ CEO, Hundreds of VP's, cutdown on paperwork, more of the cost of insurence will go to those who are actually providing health Care while bringing down costs to the consumer. That's what realy matters isn't it??? :peace
ARealConservative said:
I stated exactly what the critical component was in sentence one: price shopping. Without it no significant downward pressure exists on prices.
Click to expand...
 
jpevans said:

With a government run Single Payer system you eliminate the Stock Holders, Million$+ CEO, Hundreds of VP's, cutdown on paperwork, more of the cost of insurence will go to those who are actually providing health Care while bringing down costs to the consumer. That's what realy matters isn't it??? :peace
Click to expand...

Is that why Medicaid/Medicare are so darned efficent, free of fraud and are such low cost (per patient) systems? Look up the cost, per person, for these gov't systems and compare them to say BC/BS. Hmm...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
.

Consider the pre-existing condition ban, it sounds SO unfair too, but is it really? If I can buy medical insurance AFTER I discover an expensive to treat condition, or AFTER I feel sickly, then why EVER buy it before then? Why not cancel it immediately after care has been rendered and paid for? The same goes for "rescission"; if I say that I am healthy, or don't NOW smoke, then I get a MUCH better rate, so I likely will say so, hoping it to be true, or that it won't be challenged later. But who knows; I could have early to mid stage cancer yet may have not noticed any symptoms yet? Why don't I just wait until I am sick, or start feeling a bit off? Well, there is a compromise here, to be sure; one can postpone getting insurance until THEY "feel a bit sick" but have yet to seek treatment for that ailment (thus no proof of the "lie" is on file).
Click to expand...

I don't need to point out to you that this is why the individual mandate is in there. As another poster put it, getting more people into the pool.
 
Dion said:
I have read the original HCR and followed and work in the Healthcare Industrial Complex as a compassionate Provider.

Question ... One part of the new HCR that is now in place is that the private payers (in one of the most lucrtive industries in the country) can no longer cancel your health insurance once you get sick. Yes people ... for years you could faithfully pay your premium and then be cancelled when the bad news hits.

It was a common business practice known as rescission and one that Obama was adamant about to be included in HCR.

In the new HCR under this administration health plans cannot cancel you when you get sick unless you committed fraud when you applied for coverage.

Should this be overturned and is it unconstitutional to require a company to continue your coverage if you become ill. Another thought .... those companies that make billions ...if they cancle each woman that contracts breast cancer or each man that has a blocked artery when the next fiscal cycle rolls around they can make Billions.

What do you think ...?
Click to expand...


The reason we all have health "INSURANCE" is to have peace of mind in the event we get hit with a major health situation we will have the coverage to get good care. What is the point if they are going to just drop you when you do eventually get sick...they just want you to pay them and they never have to pay a bill for you ?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom